Cited by 142Wildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesRangeland and Wildlife Management

Assessment Of Prey Vulnerability Through Analysis Of Wolf Movements And Kill Sites

Bergman, Eric J., Garrott, Robert A., Creel, Scott, Borkowski, John J., Jaffe, Rosemary, Watson, F. G. R.·2006·Ecological Applications

Abstract

Within predator-prey systems behavior can heavily influence spatial dynamics, and accordingly, the theoretical study of how spatial dynamics relate to stability within these systems has a rich history. However, our understanding of these behaviors in large mammalian systems is poorly developed. To address the relationship between predator selection patterns, prey density, and prey vulnerability, we quantified selection patterns for two fine-scale behaviors of a recovering wolf (Canis lupus) population in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, USA. Wolf spatial data were collected between November and May from 1998-1999 until 2001-2002. Over four winters, 244 aerial locations, 522 ground-based telemetry locations, 1287 km of movement data from snow tracking, and the locations of 279 wolf kill sites were recorded. There was evidence that elk (Cervus elaphus) and bison (Bison bison) densities had a weak effect on the sites where wolves traveled and made kills. Wolf movements showed a strong selection for geothermal areas, meadows, and areas near various types of habitat edges. Proximity to edge and habitat class also had a strong influence on the locations where elk were most vulnerable to predation. There was little evidence that wolf kill sites differed from the places where wolves traveled, indicating that elk vulnerability influenced where wolves selected to travel. Our results indicate that elk are more vulnerable to wolves under certain conditions and that wolves are capable…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/04-1532

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Streams and associated channels and ravines may impede elk escape by providing physical obstacles.

    “Similarly, streams and associated channels and ravines provide physical obstacles that may impede elk escape (Bergman et al. 2006).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bergman, E. J., Garrott, R. A., Creel, S., Borkowski, J. J., Jaffe, R., & Watson, F. G. R.
Affiliations
  • Montana State University (US)
  • California State University, Monterey Bay (US)
Corresponding author
Bergman, Eric J.
Venue
Ecological Applications
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-02
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
273-284
ISSN
1051-0761 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1967512559
Cited by
142
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 10
FWCI
11.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ecological Applications (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Montana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
wolf predation, prey vulnerability, wolf movement, kill sites, elk, bison, predator-prey interactions, habitat selection, habitat edges, geothermal areas, Yellowstone National Park, wolf recovery
MeSH terms
Animals, Deer, Ecology, Environment, Feeding Behavior, Models, Biological, Movement, Population Density, Population Dynamics, Predatory Behavior, Seasons, Time Factors, Wyoming, Bison, Wolves, Food Chain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review